D. A. Carson in his commentary on Matthew in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary gives five reasons in favor of the historicity of the event. (By the way, the revised edition of this commentary is slated to appear this October. The old edition had Matthew thru Luke. The revised edition will only be Matthew and Mark.) On the two issues that Craig gives why some doubt the historicity of the story, it’s only recorded in Matthew and this makes it appear as if the Jewish authorities understood the resurrection predictions which from all accounts prior to the resurrection the disciples themselves did not understand, Carson explains:
“Matthew has regularly given information in the passion narrative that the other evangelists omit (e.g., 27:19, 34-35, 62-63); and it is methodologically wrong to doubt the historicity of all details that lack multiple attestation—not least because such ‘multiple attestation’ may sometimes go back to one literary source.”
“The objection that this scene is implausible because it shows the Jewish leaders believing something the disciples themselves cannot yet believe is insubstantial. They may have heard something on the content on 16:21; 17:9; 20:19 from Judas. Whatever the source of their information, they certainly do not believe Jesus prediction, they are merely afraid of fraud—a fear fostered perhaps by the report that Jesus’ body, against all judicial custom had been taken down from the cross and returned to Jesus’ disciples by Joseph and Nicodemus. This could also account for the delay in the request to post a guard (v. 64). The disciples disbelieved Jesus’ words about rising again, not because they could not understand the plan words, but because they had no frame of reference capable of integrating a dying and rising Messiah into their own messianic expectations.” (585-86)There are a number of these clips on YouTube of John Ankerberg and William Lane Craig. All are very short but very good. Here's two more that are must viewing.